Your arguments are tiring as hell
Your continued retreats to the "but technically it's not illegal" defense are as well - as though lack of arrest and prosecution for assholish and abusive behavior somehow excused it.
Of course, that's not really what excuses it in your mind. What excuses it in your mind is that it was done to harm members of a tribe other than the one which you are party to - and abusing the Other (that awful, degenerate, Other, who deserves whatever they get) is a good in and of itself for the Tribalist.
Again, we have a fundamental disagreement about whether protest is wrong.
We do not. I have no problem with protest in and of itself. But calling any level of stalking and targeting members of the Other and calling it "protest" in order to wrap it in some kind of veneer of excusability by arguing for it's Constitutionality is ridiculous. When the Trump Troll Hordes try to destroy the restaurant that didn't want to serve the Trump Administration Spokeswoman, that was wrong. When the leftist mob tries to ruin the lives of the owners of Memories Pizza, that's wrong. When you single out, stalk, and attempt to abuse (not to
convince, to
abuse, to
do harm to) members of the other tribe, that's wrong. It's also incredibly damaging to the nation, as it reduces social trust, increases partisan fear, distrust, anger, and hatred, and leads to an escalation of coercion, intimidation, and abuse.
I don't believe it is, our history is chock full of examples of protests, including by our Founders at the Boston Tea party for example, running into labor disputes, the Civil Rights era, the Vietnam era, that went FAR beyond chanting some words to a person while at dinner,
Indeed. During the 1970s there were years where we saw a couple of bombings a day. A century before, the KKK protested Reconstruction, mostly by targeting blacks perceived as acting uppity. The fact that an angry mob or has decided they are incensed by a particular topic does not grant them any kind of moral standing.
I have a question about our history. Can you name any of the many injustices corrected during our history solved by civil disagreements, letters to the editor, calm protests?
In fact, there is a street named after the man who - more than anyone else - personifies the argument that, to be effective, protests
must appeal to others, rather than seek to damage them in virtually every city in this great land that I have ever visited.
In contrast, how much success has, oh, say, the militia movement had in getting changes in policy due to their protests? How about the recent rise of the Alt-Rightists and their protests in Charlottesville?
When you become the bully, you don't get seen as a group of decent people being treated unjustly by an unjust system, and you don't get seen as a brave band of folks standing up for a just cause. You get seen as a bully, and one who therefore deserves to lose.
Do you think the powerful cede their authority willingly?
:lol: what part of human nature makes you think that the Trump Administration would change policy because those opposed to that policy demonstrated themselves to be abusive assholes?
The only example that comes to my mind are the advancements in recent years in gay rights, but the difference there is the powerful were on the side of LGBT because they made them money, were good markets, made for good workers.
Recommend you take a look at the changes in public opinion on that question. The SSM-etc. movement won because they managed to successfully appeal to broad swathes of folks, and they lose ground when and where they slip into becoming the bullies.
